Someone explain to me

4,003 Views | 73 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by LIB,MR BEARS
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....

Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Well, the big corporations want the $15 minimum for just the reason you cited. It will drive small businesses out of the market while the big corporations will be just fine.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....




Someone needs to explain the money tree to you. See, there is a money tree that all companies and small business owners have that produces a limitless supply of money. They are too greedy to share that money with their employees, so they need to be forced to do so by a $15 per hour minimum wage.
Dnicknames
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....



riflebear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....




Please don't bring common sense to this so called debate.
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....


...and it's more than just a 50% wage increase. It's also a 50% increase to the employer payroll tax contribution for those employees. Companies that provide percentage matches for employee savings and retirement accounts (401K, etc.) will now have a 50% increase to those contributions, if they choose to maintain those benefits. You are going to see an end to many education stipend plans for young employees and children of employees, as well as benefits like student loan repayment stipends.
STxBear81
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Means I can't hire who I want when I want
Those who make 15$ will need to work harder to keep their job as there will be less hires made. At least by me.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....


I am not advocating for a $15.00 hour minimum wage.

But the response from advocates is that $15.00 represents the minimum amount that is a fair exchange for an hour of labor and that the law is necessary (rather than a free market choice) because society has structured the economy so that capital has an unfair negotiating power over labor.

As to your example, it is incomplete. If the business makes $100,000 per month, you don't have to fire anyone; the owner(s) now make $70,000 a month (actually a little less to account for increased payroll taxes. The advocates would also note that under everyone's proposal, the increase is phased in over time, something the public does not seem to understand.

Finally, the economists behind this will point out that the economy does not necessarily contract. Those who do eatrn 50% more have increased purchasing power; their purchases will create more jobs.

Don't ask me to defend all of this-it is not my position. Just saying that you oversimplified.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"fair exchange for an hour of labor"

That all depends on the quality of that labor. An unskilled noob who sits on his hands or worse, messes things up, has no worth at all to me.


Someone with experience, diligence, and a work ethic on the other hand is worth a great deal, and I will pay to keep that person on my team.

It is not, and never will be, the government which best decides that worth.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.
Jacques Strap
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I am against $15 but I am for $10.63 to honor Mike Singletary and Robert Griffin before all of America.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....


I am not advocating for a $15.00 hour minimum wage.

But the response from advocates is that $15.00 represents the minimum amount that is a fair exchange for an hour of labor and that the law is necessary (rather than a free market choice) because society has structured the economy so that capital has an unfair negotiating power over labor.

As to your example, it is incomplete. If the business makes $100,000 per month, you don't have to fire anyone; the owner(s) now make $70,000 a month (actually a little less to account for increased payroll taxes. The advocates would also note that under everyone's proposal, the increase is phased in over time, something the public does not seem to understand.

Finally, the economists behind this will point out that the economy does not necessarily contract. Those who do eatrn 50% more have increased purchasing power; their purchases will create more jobs.

Don't ask me to defend all of this-it is not my position. Just saying that you oversimplified.


Extremely complex issue. Decades spent as a small business owner suggests to me that this is not a great idea. OTOH, if phased in over several years I believe the near term impact will be minimal. I suspect all businesses will do what they always do when their costs go up - raise prices. They will simultaneously seek to lower costs wherever possible through productivity increases which may encourage automation or further offshoring. Over time, any gains in wages for the individual will likely be offset to some extent by higher cost of living. Probably best to forgo this silliness, but not the end of the world if we don't.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Guy Noir
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I see it as a never ending cycle.

1. Cost of living requires an increase in the minimum wage.
2. The increase in minimum wage causes the cost of living to go up.
3. Repeat 1 and 2.
Whiskey Pete
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Raising minimum wage is a clever way for the gov't to get more tax revenue under the guise of "helping" the common American
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S&P 500 loves Democrats. Small businesses, well they are toast.
nein51
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Guy Noir said:

I see it as a never ending cycle.

1. Cost of living requires an increase in the minimum wage.
2. The increase in minimum wage causes the cost of living to go up.
3. Repeat 1 and 2.


It's like people can't find California on a map. The cost is living in San Francisco is 108% higher than in Cleveland. I could go from making 100k to 200k and would see no difference in my lifestyle.

Sounds awesome to make more money but it's irrelevant if everything simply costs more.

It also doesn't take into account that if a burger flipper is worth $15/hr then I'm worth probably closer to $100/hr than the $50/hr I make now.
Robert Wilson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Most people don't understand the concept of scarcity.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One US government agency (I forget which one) stated that raising the min. wage to $15 would cost the 1.3 million people their jobs.

There's a reason why those jobs have a min. wage. They are entry level. They are not designed to support a family. One should try to obtain skills to better oneself to make more than min. wage.

Finally, if I was making $15 changing bed pans at a nursing home or riding on the back of a trash trash truck, I'd quit to go work taking tickets at a movie theater or scanning groceries at HEB. Everyone's wages go up and so do prices. No one wins.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.


Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
fadskier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....


I am not advocating for a $15.00 hour minimum wage.

But the response from advocates is that $15.00 represents the minimum amount that is a fair exchange for an hour of labor and that the law is necessary (rather than a free market choice) because society has structured the economy so that capital has an unfair negotiating power over labor.

As to your example, it is incomplete. If the business makes $100,000 per month, you don't have to fire anyone; the owner(s) now make $70,000 a month (actually a little less to account for increased payroll taxes. The advocates would also note that under everyone's proposal, the increase is phased in over time, something the public does not seem to understand.

Finally, the economists behind this will point out that the economy does not necessarily contract. Those who do eatrn 50% more have increased purchasing power; their purchases will create more jobs.

Don't ask me to defend all of this-it is not my position. Just saying that you oversimplified.
I don't see how I oversimplified....I just used a made up budget. Every business attempts to stay in budget. Most small businesses do not have the profit margin to go over budget.
EatMoreSalmon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
$15 per hour across the US is not reasonable. If one lives in L.A., a $15 per hour job will not cut it. If one lives in a small town in Louisiana, $15 an hour is pretty darn good for a first job.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.


Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....
BaylorGuy314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's pointless. You pay people more but then costs increase to cover it and the purchasing power is the same.

I also think a federal minimum is stupid bc the cost of living in New York or San Fran is quite different than, say, West Texas or BFE, Kansas. Let states set their own like they do now.

The biggest weakness is that it will make us an even more import heavy country, increasing our trade deficit. That will put downward pressure on US wages which the higher minimum wage is meant to cure. It will also lead to a heavy outsourcing of jobs which may cause more damage than good from the increase.

The cynic in me wonders if this is just a public friendly way to increase tax revenues.


curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.


Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....


It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
Baylor3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Well, the big corporations want the $15 minimum for just the reason you cited. It will drive small businesses out of the market while the big corporations will be just fine.


Ding ding ding. Most of the sheeple don't get it. They think the D's are for the little people. Anyone that is an investor or a 1% loves when D in power, especially blue wave, because they just get richer and richer.

They may disagree with social policies etc but the wallet get fat with an f

The media likes to convince the lower earners how much better it is for them while they siphon away their $ and opportunity.

Big business loves more regulation of Obiden. It eliminates their competition.

Sneaky yet easy to pull over on the uneducated who prefer the overlords or who have been brought here from other countries to vote for D.

Same as it ever was.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.


Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....


It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Baylor3216 said:

Oldbear83 said:

Well, the big corporations want the $15 minimum for just the reason you cited. It will drive small businesses out of the market while the big corporations will be just fine.


Ding ding ding. Most of the sheeple don't get it. They think the D's are for the little people. Anyone that is an investor or a 1% loves when D in power, especially blue wave, because they just get richer and richer.

They may disagree with social policies etc but the wallet get fat with an f

The media likes to convince the lower earners how much better it is for them while they siphon away their $ and opportunity.

Big business loves more regulation of Obiden. It eliminates their competition.

Sneaky yet easy to pull over on the uneducated who prefer the overlords or who have been brought here from other countries to vote for D.

Same as it ever was.
Big unions love it too. Many labor contracts are pegged or benchmarked to the Federal minimum wage.
Buddha Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....




I'm just wondering what employers are doing now that healthcare costs rise 10% per year. By your logic, employers are laying off at least 1 employee per year due to premium increases.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It is a moot point. Senate parliamentarian rules you cannot use reconciliation to raise the minimum wage.

Hopefully, this will lead to a reasonable compromise.
BaylorGuy314
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Buddha Bear said:

fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....




I'm just wondering what employers are doing now that healthcare costs rise 10% per year. By your logic, employers are laying off at least 1 employee per year due to premium increases.
Lowering benefits. Selecting plans that have higher deductibles to keep premiums lower or covering less cost of the employee.

Our plan had no significant claims this past year and rose 10%. We were planning on covering 100% of the employees cost (for a single employee) and are now facing the possibility of asking them to pay $30-40/month or pick a less beneficial plan. At some point, these plans are almost useless they cover so little and cost so much.
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BornAgain said:

Means I can't hire who I want when I want


This isn't an immigration reform thread.

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

curtpenn said:

ATL Bear said:

A fry cook and dishwasher's fully loaded cost including taxes, workers comp, etc. will be around $18 an hour. For overtime it will approach $25. Now McDonald's might be able to sustain that due to volume and scale. Fred's Catfish house in Houma, Louisiana won't.


Devil's advocate here - but why doesn't Fred's Catfish house raise prices to cover his new costs? Fred's customers will be making more money so they can afford the increase perhaps. So, net zero sort of process when all is said and done.
Not sure if serious.


Very serious. As a business owner, when I've been faced with large material cost increases I've increased my prices in order to maintain profitability. If everyone's costs go up, everyone must raise prices or fail. I don't see this as being catastrophic. OTOH, I view it as pointless. I'd want meaningful concessions in return were I a legislator such as border security.
Sure, it's that simple, just raise prices....


It worked for me at least 3-4 times over the decades.
This isn't some gradual introduction of wage increases, this is a doubling. Price increases would be woefully insufficient, so staff and hour reductions would be inevitable. And small businesses will succumb to cheaper foreign competition delivered to you by a truck with a smile on it. And now that Fred's catfish platter costs more than Red Lobster, people will take their business elsewhere. All because the government decided to artificially interfere in a market that was working.


To be clear, I do not support the idea. Help me understand how this will impact Fred more than Red Lobster? My point is the market will figure this out in a macro sense and the impact won't be the boon to lower paid workers that the idiot Dems think it will be as they and we will collectively experience higher costs for some purchases which will have the effect of negating wage gains.
curtpenn
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorGuy314 said:

Buddha Bear said:

fadskier said:

why they are for the $15 minimum wage?

Here's the way I see it.....let's say a business spends $30,000 per month on employees at $10 per hour. That's 75 employees

Now they have to pay $15 per hour...they now have to let go 25 people to afford that...

if my math is correct....




I'm just wondering what employers are doing now that healthcare costs rise 10% per year. By your logic, employers are laying off at least 1 employee per year due to premium increases.
Lowering benefits. Selecting plans that have higher deductibles to keep premiums lower or covering less cost of the employee.

Our plan had no significant claims this past year and rose 10%. We were planning on covering 100% of the employees cost (for a single employee) and are now facing the possibility of asking them to pay $30-40/month or pick a less beneficial plan. At some point, these plans are almost useless they cover so little and cost so much.


Many years ago (20+?) I used to pay the full insurance premium for both my employees and their families. As you observed, dependent coverage shifted to the employee as premiums went up. Over time, as the premiums continued their relentless rise the deductibles just got bigger and bigger. Some reduction in benefits is likely if businesses are faced with arbitrary wage increases. Likely reductions in 401k contributions, for instance?
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.